**Official** Condoleezza Rice - 9/11 Testimony Thread (CkG-Approved)

[DoubleL]

Well from what I saw today Dr. Rice hit home run after home run, It is easy when you are telling the truth, Love the way she put Kerry in his place, Bob that is not the F'in Kerry

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Chadder007

Originally posted by: conjur
No, I'm saying she apparently dismissed the warnings as it was something that Bush did not want to hear about. Remember, Bush was tired of "swatting flies". Perhaps she felt Bush would be mad if she brought more flies to him that needed to be swatted.

We don't know until we can see the content of that PDB.

I have no hope for you....<shakes head>

That's the way the rest of the people who've fled the Bush Admin seem to think.

And, fwiw, here's Clarke's take on today's testimony by Rice:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/US/clarke_interview_transcript_040408-1.html

April 8 ? National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice repeatedly told the 9/11 commission today that there was no "silver bullet" that could have averted the deadly Sept. 11 terror attacks on America.

But former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, who is also an ABCNEWS consultant, said he tried to warn the president of the imminent threat of al Qaeda. He testified during the Sept. 11 commission's public hearings that the Bush administration paid too much attention to Iraq and underestimated the threat from al Qaeda, before and after the Sept. 11 attacks.

After Rice's three-hour testimony concluded, ABCNEWS' Peter Jennings asked Clarke what he thought about Rice's testimony before the commission.

The following is an unedited, uncorrected transcript of Clarke's interview with ABCNEWS' Peter Jennings as it aired on Thursday, April 8, 2004:

Jennings: Now let's talk a little bit about Richard Clarke. Even if you heard only a little of the testimony today, much of the testimony centered on the testimony of Dr. Clarke. Dr. Rice, you heard comment on it. She certainly contradicted it in some cases.

Mr. Clarke is an adviser to ABCNEWS on the subject of terrorism and has been for many months. I don't think we necessarily expected that he was going to make the kind of news that he did when he appeared before this commission, but we ? you will recall that when he testified before the commission, the Bush administration took ample opportunity to attack in a very public, very widespread way what he had said before the commission.

So in trying to understand some of the truth and the facts about this commission today, we've asked Dr. Clarke, who, as I said, has been a paid consultant to ABCNEWS over many months, to come back and try to answer a couple questions about what he has heard today and he is in Boston.

Mr. Clarke, can you hear me?

Clarke: Yes, Peter, I can.

Jennings: I just want to ask you, you heard people using your testimony in a variety of different ways.

But I wondered if you would start first by reaffirming your statement that even with more aggressive action by the Bush administration, the events of 9/11 could not have been prevented and then explain then, if you would, why what you have said should matter to this commission.

Clarke: Well, Peter, I was asked by Senator Gorton if the adoption of the strategy in February, as opposed to September, would have stopped 9/11, and I said no. And Dr. Rice said no. I think we agree on that.

The adoption of the strategy would not have stopped 9/11. What I've said might have had some effect on 9/11 would have been if Dr. Rice and the president had acted personally, gotten involved, shaken the trees, gotten the Cabinet members involved when they had ample warning in June and July and August that something was about to happen.

And frankly, I think that Dr. Rice's testimony today, and she did a very good job, basically corroborates what I said. She said that the president received 40 warnings face to face from the director of central intelligence that a major al Qaeda attack was going to take place and she admitted that the president did not have a meeting on the subject, did not convene the Cabinet.
She admitted that she didn't convene the Cabinet. And as some of the commissioners pointed out, this was in marked contrast to the way the government operated in December of 1999, when it had similar information and it successfully thwarted attacks.

So I don't see that there are a lot of factual problems with what Dr. Rice said.

There are one or two other minor points here or there that I think are probably wrong, but overall I think she corroborated what I said. She said it was inefficient to bring the Cabinet members together to have them work to stop the attacks that they had been informed were coming.

Jennings: Do you agree with her, and she said it repeatedly this morning, that the structural deficiencies, most notably in the relationship between the FBI and the CIA prevented and would have prevented any administration from doing a better job?

Clarke: No, I don't. We had meetings that I chaired two and three times a week where FBI and the CIA shared information. My deputy had a daily meeting where that took place. The problem was that there was information buried in FBI and the CIA that wasn't shaken out.

And by having the Cabinet members come to the White House every day in crisis mode and then go back to their departments and look for anything that is anywhere in the departments in December 1999, we were able to get the kind of information we needed to stop the attacks. You know, there may be structural problems within those agencies, but the way you overcome them in a crisis mode is by having the leaders of the agencies get together in the White House as a team in crisis mode.

And Dr. Rice admits she didn't do it. Dr. Rice admits she didn't do it.

Jennings: Dr. Rice and you also disagree about whether or not the White House generally regarded the whole thing as a crisis.
She says the memos which you wrote to the president had an historical nature to them rather than being actual plans of action which could be moved forward. She also says she didn't try very hard to see the president ? you didn't try very hard to see the president when you felt as strongly as you did. Would you comment on both of those?

Clarke: First of all, the document I sent to her on Jan. 25, days after the administration started, the documents ought to be declassified and people can decide for themselves. That memorandum on Jan. 25 said I urgently need a meeting with the Cabinet to approve these plans, these strategies. we can get into semantical distinctions as to whether it was a plan or strategy or a series of decisions that had to be made, but on Jan. 25, I was saying we have a strategy, it needs these additional elements, the president has to make decisions about that so we can go forward.

And I think what you'll see if it's declassified and you compare it to where they came out on Sept. 4 is basically on Sept. 4, they adopted what I proposed on Jan. 25. And so the time in between was wasted.

Now, on the issue of whether or not I asked for a meeting with the president, I did. I asked for a meeting with the president several times beginning, in fact, before Dr. Rice even took office in the transition briefing. I said I have given this briefing to the vice president, I've given it to the secretary of state, I've given it now to you, I would like to give it to the president.

And what I was told was I could brief the president on terrorism after the policy development process had been completed.

Jennings: You moved at one point from terrorism to cyber security and you did have a meeting with the president at that time.
If you felt as passionately about your terrorism plans, why did you not tell the president about that when you had a chance to see him face to face?

Clarke: Because I had been told by Dr. Rice and her deputy that this was a briefing on countering the cyber threats and not on al Qaeda and that I would have my opportunity on al Qaeda if I just held on, eventually they would get to it, probably in September.

Jennings: Mr. Clarke, thank you very much for joining us today. And thank you for your help to us over the last many months.

Clarke: Thank you, Peter.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: conjur
I sure would love to see that PDB titled "bin Laden to attack within the United States".

It couldn't have contained anything to be concerned about....Bush started his month-long vacation the next day.

:disgust:

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ThePresence

BEN-VENISTE: Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6th PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB?

RICE: I believe the title was, Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.

Now, the ...

BEN-VENISTE: Thank you.

RICE: No, Mr. Ben-Veniste ...

BEN-VENISTE: I will get into the ...

RICE: I would like to finish my point here.

BEN-VENISTE: I didn't know there was a point.

RICE: Given that _ you asked me whether or not it warned of attacks.

BEN-VENISTE: I asked you what the title was.

RICE: You said, did it not warn of attacks. It did not warn of attacks inside the United States. It was historical information based on old reporting. There was no new threat information. And it did not, in fact, warn of any coming attacks inside the United States.

Now tell me who gives a sh|t what the title was?! Let's talk about what it actually discussed? It was a bad attempt by a terribly slanted guy on a witchhunt to try to attack her, and she rebuffed it quite nicely.

I don't trust Rice. The PDB should be declassified. Also, from what I was able to hear during the testimony, the Commission has seen that document but cannot discuss it as it's not been declassified. Why would members of the panel bring it up if it contained worthless data?

"I'm quite certain the president never pushed anyone to twist the facts," Rice said.Only "quite certain"? That's not the same as stating a fact...that's stating an opinion.

You are really stretching now.

Not in the least. She's a very intelligent person and that phrase implies a fact without stating it as a fact. That way, she cannot be charged with perjury later on.

If it's simply historical in nature, I wonder why it can't be declassified?

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: conjur
I sure would love to see that PDB titled "bin Laden to attack within the United States".

It couldn't have contained anything to be concerned about....Bush started his month-long vacation the next day.

:disgust:

Oh my how I love these types of comments. Presidents run this country. They ALL take vacations from time to time. Unless there was a piece of specific information in this document that stated that attacks were imminent, just a document saying that Bin Laden wanted to attack the US itself is not enough for the President to postpone a vacation for.

You people act like the President should have known the day he took office that Al Qaeda wanted to attack us on Sept. 11 and that he just ignored the threat.

 

[Gaard]

Claim vs. Fact: Condoleezza Rice's Opening Statement

CLAIM: "We decided immediately to continue pursuing the Clinton Administration's covert action authorities and other efforts to fight the network."

FACT: Newsweek reported that "In the months before 9/11, the U.S. Justice Department curtailed a highly classified program called 'Catcher's Mitt' to monitor al-Qaida suspects in the United States." Additionally, AP reported "though Predator drones spotted Osama bin Laden as many as three times in late 2000, the Bush administration did not fly the unmanned planes over Afghanistan during its first eight months," thus terminating the reconnaissance missions started during the Clinton Administration. [Sources: Newsweek, 3/21/04; AP, 6/25/03]

CLAIM: "The strategy set as its goal the elimination of the al-Qaida network. It ordered the leadership of relevant U.S. departments and agencies to make the elimination of al-Qaida a high priority and to use all aspects of our national power -- intelligence, financial, diplomatic, and military -- to meet this goal."

FACT: 9/11 Comissioner Jamie Gorelick: "Is it true, as Dr. Rice said, 'Our plan called for military options to attack Al Qaida and Taliban leadership'?" Armitage: "No, I think that was amended after the horror of 9/11." [Source: 9/11 Commission testimony, 3/24/04]

CLAIM: "We bolstered the Treasury Department's activities to track and seize terrorist assets."

FACT: The new Bush Treasury Department "disapproved of the Clinton Administration's approach to money laundering issues, which had been an important part of the drive to cut off the money flow to bin Laden." Specifically, the Bush Administration opposed Clinton Administration-backed efforts by the G-7 and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development that targeted countries with "loose banking regulations" being abused by terrorist financiers. Meanwhile, the Bush Administration provided "no funding for the new National Terrorist Asset Tracking Center." [Source: "The Age of Sacred Terror," 2003]

CLAIM: "We moved quickly to arm Predator unmanned surveillance vehicles for action against al-Qaida."

FACT: According to AP, "the military successfully tested an armed Predator throughout the first half of 2001" but the White House "failed to resolve a debate over whether the CIA or Pentagon should operate the armed Predators" and the armed Predator never got off the ground before 9/11. [Source: AP, 6/25/03]

CLAIM: "We increased funding for counterterrorism activities across several agencies."

FACT: Upon taking office, the 2002 Bush budget proposed to slash more than half a billion dollars out of funding for counterterrorism at the Justice Department. In preparing the 2003 budget, the New York Times reported that the Bush White House "did not endorse F.B.I. requests for $58 million for 149 new counterterrorism field agents, 200 intelligence analysts and 54 additional translators" and "proposed a $65 million cut for the program that gives state and local counterterrorism grants." Newsweek noted the Administration "vetoed a request to divert $800 million from missile defense into counterterrorism." [Sources: 2001 vs. 2002 Budget Analysis; NY Times, 2/28/02; Newsweek, 5/27/02]

CLAIM: "While we were developing this new strategy to deal with al-Qaida, we also made decisions on a number of specific anti-al-Qaida initiatives that had been proposed by Dick Clarke."

FACT: Rice's statement finally confirms what she previously ? and inaccurately ? denied. She falsely claimed on 3/22/04 that "No al-Qaida plan was turned over to the new administration." [Washington Post, 3/22/04]

CLAIM: "When threat reporting increased during the Spring and Summer of 2001, we moved the U.S. Government at all levels to a high state of alert and activity."

FACT: Documents indicate that before Sept. 11, 2001, the Bush Administration "did not give terrorism top billing in their strategic plans for the Justice Department, which includes the FBI." Gen. Henry H. Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff until Oct. 1, 2001, said during the summer, terrorism had moved "farther to the back burner" and recounted how the Bush Administration's top two Pentagon appointees, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, "shut down" a plan to weaken the Taliban. Similarly, Gen. Don Kerrick, who served in the Bush White House, sent a memo to the new Administration saying "We are going to be struck again" by al Qaeda, but he never heard back. He said terrorism was not "above the waterline. They were gambling nothing would happen." [Sources: Washington Post, 3/22/04; LA Times, 3/30/04]

CLAIM: "The threat reporting that we received in the Spring and Summer of 2001 was not specific as to...manner of attack."

FACT: ABC News reported, Bush Administration "officials acknowledged that U.S. intelligence officials informed President Bush weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks that bin Laden's terrorist network might try to hijack American planes." Dateline NBC reported that on August 6, 2001, the President personally "received a one-and-a-half page briefing advising him that Osama bin Laden was capable of a major strike against the US, and that the plot could include the hijacking of an American airplane." Rice herself actually admitted this herself, saying the Aug. 6 briefing the President received said "terrorists might attempt to hijack a U.S. aircraft." [Sources: ABC News, 5/16/02; NBC, 9/10/02]

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Ilmater

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: conjur
I sure would love to see that PDB titled "bin Laden to attack within the United States".

It couldn't have contained anything to be concerned about....Bush started his month-long vacation the next day.

:disgust:

Oh my how I love these types of comments. Presidents run this country. They ALL take vacations from time to time. Unless there was a piece of specific information in this document that stated that attacks were imminent, just a document saying that Bin Laden wanted to attack the US itself is not enough for the President to postpone a vacation for.

You people act like the President should have known the day he took office that Al Qaeda wanted to attack us on Sept. 11 and that he just ignored the threat.

He certainly didn't seem concerned about all of the warnings of a threat, neither did Rice, neither did Hadley.

And, yeah, Gaard, if it's just historical data, declassify that puppy!!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Ilmater

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: conjur
I sure would love to see that PDB titled "bin Laden to attack within the United States".

It couldn't have contained anything to be concerned about....Bush started his month-long vacation the next day.

:disgust:

Oh my how I love these types of comments. Presidents run this country. They ALL take vacations from time to time. Unless there was a piece of specific information in this document that stated that attacks were imminent, just a document saying that Bin Laden wanted to attack the US itself is not enough for the President to postpone a vacation for.

You people act like the President should have known the day he took office that Al Qaeda wanted to attack us on Sept. 11 and that he just ignored the threat.

He certainly didn't seem concerned about all of the warnings of a threat, neither did Rice, neither did Hadley.

And, yeah, Gaard, if it's just historical data, declassify that puppy!!

Has a PDB ever been declassified? just curious.

CkG

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
He certainly didn't seem concerned about all of the warnings of a threat, neither did Rice, neither did Hadley.

And, yeah, Gaard, if it's just historical data, declassify that puppy!!

Has a PDB ever been declassified? just curious.

CkG

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB116/

Actually, ten President's Daily Briefs are in the public domain, officially declassified by the U.S. government. (Note 4) The CIA established the PDB under that name in 1964, and PDBs from the Johnson administration began to be declassified in 1985, during the tenure of President Reagan. The ten declassified PDBs contain such extraordinarily sensitive items as this one on Egypt: "Nasir, in a speech to the nation on Saturday, outlined a 'program of action' to bring about political reform. We doubt that it will amount to much." That's the whole item. Another supersensitive entry concerns the head of state of Indonesia: "Despite Sukarno's long-standing kidney ailment, for which he delays proper treatment, he has seemed quite chipper lately." Three lines of the item are blacked out since they refer to the sources of intelligence, perhaps Indonesian assets of the CIA, or communications intercepts, or maybe just the British ambassador. One of the PDBs is even published in the latest volume of the distinguished State Department documentary series, Foreign Relations of the United States.

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: Ferocious
from msnbc....

Rice?s comment about ?swatting flies? drew a sharp response from Democratic former Sen. Bob Kerrey, who noted that the administration did not respond militarily to the attack on the USS Cole off the coast of Yemen in October 2000.

?Dr. Rice, we only swatted a fly once. ... How the hell could he [Bush] be tired?? Kerrey asked.

You go Kerrey!

I still can't fathom how a Navy ship of ours was attacked and we basically did nothing about it.

Yeah, there's more:

RICE: I'm aware, Mr. Kerrey, of a speech that you gave at that time that said that perhaps the best thing that we could do to respond to the Cole and to the memories was to do something about the threat of Saddam Hussein.

That's a strategic view...

(APPLAUSE)

And we took a strategic view. We didn't take a tactical view. I mean, it was really -- quite frankly, I was blown away when I read the speech, because it's a brilliant speech. It talks about really...

(LAUGHTER)

... an asymmetric...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
He certainly didn't seem concerned about all of the warnings of a threat, neither did Rice, neither did Hadley.

And, yeah, Gaard, if it's just historical data, declassify that puppy!!

Has a PDB ever been declassified? just curious.

CkG

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB116/

Actually, ten President's Daily Briefs are in the public domain, officially declassified by the U.S. government. (Note 4) The CIA established the PDB under that name in 1964, and PDBs from the Johnson administration began to be declassified in 1985, during the tenure of President Reagan. The ten declassified PDBs contain such extraordinarily sensitive items as this one on Egypt: "Nasir, in a speech to the nation on Saturday, outlined a 'program of action' to bring about political reform. We doubt that it will amount to much." That's the whole item. Another supersensitive entry concerns the head of state of Indonesia: "Despite Sukarno's long-standing kidney ailment, for which he delays proper treatment, he has seemed quite chipper lately." Three lines of the item are blacked out since they refer to the sources of intelligence, perhaps Indonesian assets of the CIA, or communications intercepts, or maybe just the British ambassador. One of the PDBs is even published in the latest volume of the distinguished State Department documentary series, Foreign Relations of the United States.

Alright -that's what I was looking for. So the answer is yes(to my question).
So in 18 years that PDB can be declassified

I'd love to read it though as I'm sure tons of people would. However I'm sure just as what's his name tried to insinuate by asking what the title was - the left will take it and run around trying to claim it was a warning inspite of it's contents even when declassified. The left will say that it was a "warning" of a pending strike - when it in reality probably doesn't have specific threat details like Rice pointed out. It will be interesting to see what happens though - you know...the politics of this charade

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: burnedout

Originally posted by: Ferocious
from msnbc....

Rice?s comment about ?swatting flies? drew a sharp response from Democratic former Sen. Bob Kerrey, who noted that the administration did not respond militarily to the attack on the USS Cole off the coast of Yemen in October 2000.

?Dr. Rice, we only swatted a fly once. ... How the hell could he [Bush] be tired?? Kerrey asked.

You go Kerrey!

I still can't fathom how a Navy ship of ours was attacked and we basically did nothing about it.

Yeah, there's more:

RICE: I'm aware, Mr. Kerrey, of a speech that you gave at that time that said that perhaps the best thing that we could do to respond to the Cole and to the memories was to do something about the threat of Saddam Hussein.

That's a strategic view...

(APPLAUSE)

And we took a strategic view. We didn't take a tactical view. I mean, it was really -- quite frankly, I was blown away when I read the speech, because it's a brilliant speech. It talks about really...

(LAUGHTER)

... an asymmetric...

Kerrey a Neo-con? Hmmm....

CkG

 

[ThePresence]

If it's simply historical in nature, I wonder why it can't be declassified?

Maybe because it contains classified information?!?! :Q
The members of the panel have seen it.

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: ThePresence

If it's simply historical in nature, I wonder why it can't be declassified?

Maybe because it contains classified information?!?! :Q
The members of the panel have seen it.

Did you just change your avatar Presence? Were you not an American flag an hour ago?

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: Ilmater

Originally posted by: ThePresence

If it's simply historical in nature, I wonder why it can't be declassified?

Maybe because it contains classified information?!?! :Q
The members of the panel have seen it.

Did you just change your avatar Presence? Were you not an American flag an hour ago?

Yes, I just changed it.

 

[Ilmater]

OK, just checking. I keep track of people partly by their avatars, so that screwed me up.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: ThePresence

If it's simply historical in nature, I wonder why it can't be declassified?

Maybe because it contains classified information?!?! :Q
The members of the panel have seen it.

Only two members of the panel have seen it. They were not allowed to take notes.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: ThePresence

If it's simply historical in nature, I wonder why it can't be declassified?

Maybe because it contains classified information?!?! :Q
The members of the panel have seen it.

Only two members of the panel have seen it. They were not allowed to take notes.

Well, it was just historical data...nothing important. No need for anyone to see it.



Ssshhhhhhh

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: ThePresence

If it's simply historical in nature, I wonder why it can't be declassified?

Maybe because it contains classified information?!?! :Q
The members of the panel have seen it.

Only two members of the panel have seen it. They were not allowed to take notes.

Well, it was just historical data...nothing important. No need for anyone to see it.
Ssshhhhhhh

Right....

So this Jacknut(whatever his name is) who fished this out there knew exactly what he was doing and you guys have taken the bait. Was he one of the supposed two who saw this PDB? If so - why didn't he make a direct case against it(and still keep the details classified) and if not - why exactly didn't the other commision memebers key in on this - you know...the ones who are said to have actually seen the document?
IMO this was a direct attempt to make a political statement using a classified report he knew the public wouldn't have access to so he could frame it the way he wanted to.

CkG

 

[Phokus]

There's a stark contrast to rice and clarke: clarke is direct and answered questions with straight forward 'yes' and 'no's as well as 'i did this' and 'i did that' and was generally unflappable, while rice is evasive, tempermental, and vague. I don't trust rice at all.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: FrodoB
This went perfectly for the Republicans. Clarke is now proven to be a complete liar POS. Rice was absolutely brilliant. She confirmed what we all know: the Clinton policy of being reactive rather than preemptive was a failure, Bush was doing his best to correct the failures of the Clinton administration, terrorism was a top priority of Bush from the very beginning, and the structure in place in this country made us vulnerable.
No matter how you liberals try to spin it, the country now will fully understand that YOU ARE WRONG. The libs will not regain control of this country in November. Slam dunk for the smartest woman in America - Condoleezza Rice and slam dunk for the Bush administration.

Show in ONE way how Clarke was proven to be a liar.

Just ONE!

Still waiting....

 

[josphII]

Originally posted by: Phokus
There's a stark contrast to rice and clarke: clarke is direct and answered questions with straight forward 'yes' and 'no's as well as 'i did this' and 'i did that' and was generally unflappable, while rice is evasive, tempermental, and vague. I don't trust rice at all.

wow i wouldnt have used any of those adjectives to describe her testimony

 

[Gaard]

stolen...




RICE: You said, did it not warn of attacks. It did not warn of attacks inside the United States. It was historical information based on old reporting. There was no new threat information. And it did not, in fact, warn of any coming attacks inside the United States.


later....


KEAN: This is the last question, Senator.

KERREY: Actually it won't be a question.

In the spirit of further declassification, this is what the August 6th memo said to the president: that the FBI indicates patterns of suspicious activity in the United States consistent with preparations for hijacking.

That's the language of the memo that was briefed to the president on the 6th of August.

RICE: And that was checked out and steps were taken through FAA circulars to warn of hijackings.



In other words, it was a historical document that reported no new threat but nonetheless we responded to it as if it was a new threat.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard
stolen...




RICE: You said, did it not warn of attacks. It did not warn of attacks inside the United States. It was historical information based on old reporting. There was no new threat information. And it did not, in fact, warn of any coming attacks inside the United States.


later....


KEAN: This is the last question, Senator.

KERREY: Actually it won't be a question.

In the spirit of further declassification, this is what the August 6th memo said to the president: that the FBI indicates patterns of suspicious activity in the United States consistent with preparations for hijacking.

That's the language of the memo that was briefed to the president on the 6th of August.

RICE: And that was checked out and steps were taken through FAA circulars to warn of hijackings.



In other words, it was a historical document that reported no new threat but nonetheless we responded to it as if it was a new threat.

hijackings - not Al Qeada and no specific threats

CkG

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard
stolen...




RICE: You said, did it not warn of attacks. It did not warn of attacks inside the United States. It was historical information based on old reporting. There was no new threat information. And it did not, in fact, warn of any coming attacks inside the United States.


later....


KEAN: This is the last question, Senator.

KERREY: Actually it won't be a question.

In the spirit of further declassification, this is what the August 6th memo said to the president: that the FBI indicates patterns of suspicious activity in the United States consistent with preparations for hijacking.

That's the language of the memo that was briefed to the president on the 6th of August.

RICE: And that was checked out and steps were taken through FAA circulars to warn of hijackings.



In other words, it was a historical document that reported no new threat but nonetheless we responded to it as if it was a new threat.

hijackings - not Al Qeada and no specific threats

CkG

So who do you think the memo was talking about carrying out possible Hijacking, the Easter Bunny???